Markt v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[Sophistication does not make a plaintiff devoid of protection under the securities laws or immune to injury by misrepresentation”
• finding plaintiff whose “investment decisions depended on information readily available to other investors and were not based on the type of knowledge available only to an institutional investor, or one who had direct contact with corporate officers” to have satisfied typicality requirement
• certification denied, because “[plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met” and had not done so
• a named plaintiff meets the “typicality” requirement of Rule 23 where “[t]he alleged misrepresentations are sufficiently related in time and in content to be construed as a common course of conduct for purposes of class certification ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).